There is absolutely zero reason to trust Ripple Labs, just as there is zero reason to trust banks. I don't trust banks or bankers at all, but I trust the FDIC.
For a similar example in the real world, look into "cornering the market." The concept is simple, it takes a lot of money, people try it, but it's rarely successful.
. And repeat as many times as you can across as many wallets as you can, and then quickly cash out by exchanging your double-spent Bitcoin for another currenc
As soon as you transfer it to cash, the person who does the transferring is going to know your bank account, and going to know who you are.
All they really need to do is decrease the likelihood of an attack. 51% is terribly low. It needs to be closer to 60-70%
Double spending with bitcoin is harder than just getting 51% of the available CPU power. For it to be effective, you also need to find someone willing to sell you something in exchange for bitcoin, something valuable enough to cover the cost of that much CPU power. Then you need to get them to just give it to you like that, without using an escrow service, without waiting for the payment to settle. Then you need to be sure that this person will not try to get revenge, either through the court or through a hitman. This is a rich person, someone who can afford a hitman.
Remember that the 51% doesn't allow you to steal people's money: it only allows you rollback transactions that already happened. You still need to figure out how to execute the second half of the scam.
We're not talking about some complex algorithm here. This isn't machine learning, it's not something experimental. It isn't something new. Log-in code is something that we've known how to do for decades.
If you can't be bothered to test it, then use a library written by someone who did.
If a content creator doesn't want you to see it without paying and you don't want to see it with paying, I don't see what the problem is. As for the payment processor getting a huge portion, it isn't a blocker because there are already sites funding themselves this way. In other words, there are already working demonstrations that the no-ad internet can work. A lot of sites will disappear but those are all sites people don't care about very much.
Nah, now your are straining over hairs. Patreon solves the first problem (or alternatively, paywalls like the wall street journal and new york times solve it in different ways). The second problem is annoying, but not a blocker.
Ultimately the Dalvik layer is making c language graphics calls to the kernel layer. All you need is permissions to do the same, and adb has permission (last time I checked). I think most games don't go through Dalvik either, using jni, but I haven't checked.
- Paywalls - The Internet returning to being a hobby, apart from sites that sell physical goods
- A fourth option (specify)
These three. Think about the websites you visit: are there any you would really miss visiting that you wouldn't be willing to pay for, even na token amount like 50 cents a month?
The other option is something like Patreon. (I used to favor micropayments, but now I think they would likely have the same problem as ads, at a smaller scale).
That's a really great study and the methods section is an especially great read. The temperatures are dramatically different than the ones in Puerto Rico. The flour beetles in that study (or any other known insect) would have no problem surviving the temperatures found in Puerto Rico.
The article never said Anthropogenic or human-caused
The article does, it says "“We are essentially destroying the...." 'We' refers to humanity (and for that matter, when the article/summary said "global warming" it was referring to human caused global warming).
You should probably ask anyone who farms or hunts.
I do. I've never heard of a hot summer making any difference in insect population. Cold winter, sure, but that's basically a question of freezing or not freezing.
and yet here you are disputing this guy's research
I'm not disputing his research, I'm disputing his conclusion. Although now that you mention it, his research does raise eyebrows. 98% of the insects are gone? This is a study I would double-check before using it for anything important.
Slashdot Mirror
These are good things if you trust Ripple Labs.
There is absolutely zero reason to trust Ripple Labs, just as there is zero reason to trust banks. I don't trust banks or bankers at all, but I trust the FDIC.
For a similar example in the real world, look into "cornering the market." The concept is simple, it takes a lot of money, people try it, but it's rarely successful.
. And repeat as many times as you can across as many wallets as you can, and then quickly cash out by exchanging your double-spent Bitcoin for another currenc
As soon as you transfer it to cash, the person who does the transferring is going to know your bank account, and going to know who you are.
So like what, 30,000 boxes of Tide?
Why do people use the phrase "content creator" instead of the word "author"?
I don't care.
Do you work in advertising or something? Your arguments are of the type you would expect from someone who would rather not see a solution.
Visa alone is capable of processing 56,000 transactions per second.
All they really need to do is decrease the likelihood of an attack. 51% is terribly low. It needs to be closer to 60-70%
Double spending with bitcoin is harder than just getting 51% of the available CPU power. For it to be effective, you also need to find someone willing to sell you something in exchange for bitcoin, something valuable enough to cover the cost of that much CPU power. Then you need to get them to just give it to you like that, without using an escrow service, without waiting for the payment to settle. Then you need to be sure that this person will not try to get revenge, either through the court or through a hitman. This is a rich person, someone who can afford a hitman.
Remember that the 51% doesn't allow you to steal people's money: it only allows you rollback transactions that already happened. You still need to figure out how to execute the second half of the scam.
This is a good post.
We're not talking about some complex algorithm here. This isn't machine learning, it's not something experimental. It isn't something new. Log-in code is something that we've known how to do for decades.
If you can't be bothered to test it, then use a library written by someone who did.
And now insect populations are rapidly collapsing in many locations over the planet.
Not because of heat, though.
If a content creator doesn't want you to see it without paying and you don't want to see it with paying, I don't see what the problem is. As for the payment processor getting a huge portion, it isn't a blocker because there are already sites funding themselves this way. In other words, there are already working demonstrations that the no-ad internet can work. A lot of sites will disappear but those are all sites people don't care about very much.
It worked for the devs. Why test every corner case? Why even think about that? It was passing the unit tests, and everyone is doing token based auth.
Nah, now your are straining over hairs. Patreon solves the first problem (or alternatively, paywalls like the wall street journal and new york times solve it in different ways). The second problem is annoying, but not a blocker.
Ultimately the Dalvik layer is making c language graphics calls to the kernel layer. All you need is permissions to do the same, and adb has permission (last time I checked). I think most games don't go through Dalvik either, using jni, but I haven't checked.
Oh, was he bragging??
- Paywalls
- The Internet returning to being a hobby, apart from sites that sell physical goods
- A fourth option (specify)
These three. Think about the websites you visit: are there any you would really miss visiting that you wouldn't be willing to pay for, even na token amount like 50 cents a month?
The other option is something like Patreon. (I used to favor micropayments, but now I think they would likely have the same problem as ads, at a smaller scale).
That's a really great study and the methods section is an especially great read. The temperatures are dramatically different than the ones in Puerto Rico. The flour beetles in that study (or any other known insect) would have no problem surviving the temperatures found in Puerto Rico.
The article never said Anthropogenic or human-caused
The article does, it says "“We are essentially destroying the ...." 'We' refers to humanity (and for that matter, when the article/summary said "global warming" it was referring to human caused global warming).
You mean small cold blooded animals, who had adapted for millions of years for a particular climate have trouble to a rapidly changing climate?
These cold blooded animals have evolved to deal with 20+ degree temperature changes every night, amazing, right?
Which insect are you thinking about in particular that thrives at 27 degrees, but disappears almost completely at 28 degrees?
You should probably ask anyone who farms or hunts.
I do. I've never heard of a hot summer making any difference in insect population. Cold winter, sure, but that's basically a question of freezing or not freezing.
The article makes a decent case for global warming as the culprit
It really doesn't. What insect that thrives at 27 degrees practically disappears at 29 degrees? Or maybe the recent hurricane had more to do with it?
and yet here you are disputing this guy's research
I'm not disputing his research, I'm disputing his conclusion. Although now that you mention it, his research does raise eyebrows. 98% of the insects are gone? This is a study I would double-check before using it for anything important.
So now you're denying global warming, why would the response change?
No, I'm doubting that AGW is killing the food web.
The earlier post was referring to AGW.
Either way it's a massive change planetwide that is happening, killing the food web.
There's not much evidence of that.
Remove 2 billion people? And put them where exactly?
In the nether, or maybe a river. At least, that's where I unload my excess cobblestone.